For more than two hours, we fall out of reality and look at the world through the eyes of young Jack. We grow, develop, feel, rejoice and suffer with it.
Thanks to the unique camera work, we literally smell the grass on the lawn near the house, the warmth of the sun warming our skin, rough leaves of bushes scratching our feet in the forest. The operator literally grabs us by the spine and drags us by the liquid crystal environment of the monitor, and, one minute - and we no longer have any doubt that we are there, along with the main characters.
How should we interpret the main idea? What has she become to me? What shape did I see it in?
This is a unique moment in our lives. Malik shows the history of our universe, our planet, an evolution that has teemed on earth for billions of years for just one thing: that you, the viewer who at the moment appears as little boy Jack, live, feel, feel this great miracle called life. The movie is full of life. It's exhaustive. She bursts out of every frame with pink quilt. Here she is — everyone is looking for her — and she is! Like glasses on Shaw's nose, right there, almost in your hands, you can already feel her elusive touches - here and now! Life! So simple. Painfully simple. And the meaning in it is so ordinary - happiness, love, faith, whatever. Whatever happens. Everything is so accessible, real and simple.
It’s not even a sodium, but a harmonious mixture, a magnificent duet, a combination of what does not go together – divine theory and Darwinism. In this film, they are not separate from each other, they go together. Hand in hand. So perfectly complement each other and everything immediately falls into place.
And that's not the idea of evolution that we've seen in Bradbury. He showed the uniqueness of each element of the great evolutionary chain, its significance for the whole, and Malik shows the value of the whole for one. All the uniqueness, uniqueness of the moment of our life on earth.
On the other hand, the other side of the playable idea is immediately revealed - Jack, the little boy metaphorically appears as if in the role of Adam, who learns this life from the very beginning, who learns over time from both God and the Devil, gradually learning good and evil. We look at the world through the eyes of a child, we learn, our perception grows and changes. On the one hand, the mother brings into us all the softest, gentlest and kindest in nature, and on the other, the father - her absolute opposite, teaches us to fight, to fight back, awakens in us all the worst and vile. And we live. We experience in time this unique process of existence, development, perception.
The great performance of the actors cannot be ignored either. I don’t know how much Sean Penn brought his unique contribution to the tape, but Jessica Chastain is simply an indispensable figure who lived the role from the very first to the last second completely.
And here it is, again, life — raging, unique, simple and at the same time infinitely complex. And, of course, beautiful. It is beautiful, whatever it is.
But, of course, the film will drag on. Tightened and confused. It is difficult to perceive, you need to tune in to it, you need to live it. I don’t know if these are negative qualities or features, but 1.5 points will leave the total counter.
8.5 out of 10
After viewing it immediately becomes clear why the film received the Palme d’Or. It is this kind of film that is welcomed at the Cannes Film Festival: atypical shooting, a philosophical script consisting, to a large extent, of silence and short monologues, as well as classical music. In principle, if you throw out all the unusual moments from the story (the first 20 minutes, for example), the film turns out to be a fairly ordinary family drama, but, in any case, Terrence Malik, with all the usual plot, created something charming, memorable for a long time and telling the viewer about the beauty of life and all its dark sides.
The focus is on the story of the Obrian family, so deeply and successfully told by Brad Pitt, Sean Penn and Jessica Chastain. Life in this family consists of understanding, trust and love, but everything passes away. After a family misfortune, three sons, Jack in particular, fall under the influence of their parents. A mother and father try to teach their children, but they do it their way. The father is a tough man, demanding from his sons the maximum dedication to each cause and respect for himself, but with each attempt of domestication, children increasingly repel their father, feeling hatred and hostility towards him. Mother is a gentle, kind and understanding woman who makes it clear that there is love, warmth and kindness in the world. Two people. Two worlds. Children grow up in this place, discovering everything new and new. Jack becomes bolder, more aggressive and sadder. And time makes the characters even more unhappy and fallen, because time gives a chance to look at the past from different sides and regret everything. That's what Sean Penn's character does. Years later, he looks back. Looking around, he sees his childhood, himself, mother and father, realizing that this is destined to happen.
The story does not look simple, but rather the opposite. A bloody calm and lively story, consisting of great actors (in particular, I want to note Brad Pitt, so surprisingly unlike himself), a strong script and good music. Terrence Malik teaches you how to survive in the ordinary world. It teaches us to look at the world and not only look for the bad. The film was very lively, despite the slow development of events.
The premiere of the film was quite loud. I've personally heard a lot of feedback. The mood was: either I would see a very long and boring movie, or still painted by critics genius.
Art house? What a way to attribute everything to arthouse. There is a concept of genre cinema. Although how Brad Pitt got there is really a mystery to me.
It just so happened that I saw another, later Malik’s film “To a Miracle” (called by critics the unfinished “Tree of Life”). From a couple of pictures, it is more clear what the director actually wants to convey to the viewer with all his works.
Stylistics in the visual. Malik's films are one big visual. As a visualist (and film lovers are visual) I like that. Operator's work, lighting, installation, many beautiful shots. But how can you turn off the sound? No wonder people were leaving the cinemas. A frightening silence and a lesson in nature science, and all this pours out on the unprepared viewer. And then the film is called an art house for elites. If you want half the film to show the beauty of nature, please deign to immerse the viewer completely, here and music is needed, and dynamics.
Malik definitely lacks the semantic load, the fullness of the picture, as in the same “Fountain” Aronofsky. You can’t even tell the movie to your friends. The plot is extremely phantom, a set of unmotivated actions.
The trouble is that (probably for the first time) I can’t say for sure whether I liked the movie or not.
The title of the review was not chosen by chance. The beauty of the frame, a perfectly mounted video sequence plus, albeit somewhat straightforward, but wonderful plot. But that's not the point. In the Tree of Life, Malik asks: Is there a God? Why doesn't he do what we want him to do? Through the frames with the formation of the universe, we notice a kind of epigraph. Think of the dinosaur moment, because that's where the idea, expressed by the boy's father, is that you can't be kind, you have to push, then you'll thrive. Remember when the dinosaurs died out. They died out, as Malik shows, because they were proud and arrogant, the strong exterminated the weak. And that's why God punished them. But back to my father. He is enterprising, intelligent, adapted to life. But he is self-centered, commands his family like a tyrant, oppressively educates boys (though he wants them to become like him and be successful like him), considers his wife a naive simpleton. The film has three storylines; the origin of life, the childhood of the protagonist and the mature years of the protagonist. And the last line came out, albeit extremely small (about 15 minutes), but it allows you to understand what became the main character. His memory is more imprinted on his mother than his father, although the hero became a successful leader of a construction company (remember the father’s covenant). This means that the main character took the path of nature, not reason.
And I want to say one last thing. Terrence Malik is highly allegorical. Mother is nature, Father is God. Children are the way of humanity. In this film merged biblical allusions, a certain beauty inherent in all nature, plus a certain imitation of Tarkovsky.
It is difficult to understand and evaluate the works of outstanding masters, since the viewer must have considerable cultural preparedness. This picture is filled with symbolism, allegories, ingenious technical performance, deep atmosphere and in level resembles the paintings of Stanley Kubrick “Space Odyssey: 2001” and Paolo Sorrentino “Great Beauty”. They also raise questions for which there are only theories and conjectures—the eternal search for truth.
Here, Terence Malik shows a quite ordinary story of the inner struggle of man. There are two paths between God and the Father. They contrast and create a balance of light and dark, but the boy, even as an adult man, can not accept both sides, which causes internal resonance. The father seems to him hated for his pressure, and the attitude towards the mother is based on the Oedipus complex, which also has a duality and causes rejection. The boy intuitively tries to correct the mistakes of his parents and the imperfections of the world, but because of this, the pain that we see in the expression of the young character throughout the film is even more intense. The death of a brother is added to everything else, and the preceding moment of childhood remains the only warm feeling.
The director shows family grief from different characters and everyone asks questions about the existence of God, his relationship to humanity, the afterlife. The masterpiece visual series of the birth of the planet and the birth of life on Earth, as well as natural selection show the uncompromising nature, ruthlessness to human misfortunes, but also indescribable beauty, maternal tenderness. They are the two sides, like the father and mother of the boy, will always exist, and will oppose within man. The endless cycle of destruction and creation of the Universe, ranging from the Big Bang to the multifaceted striking nature. The author did not follow the biblical teachings or deny the existence of God, but acted as an agnostic who accepted both sides and gave no answers.
As you noticed, at the end of the film, the main character Jack, already an adult, disappears the feeling of pain in the facial expression, he seems to be released and accepts everything as it is. The hero reconnects with the collective unconscious, rich heritage of ancestors, the divine principle and the surrounding matter. This is the Tree of Life, in which all humanity has common roots that must be embraced. We need to forgive the mistakes of the past, intuitively realize the path we have traveled from the creation of the world to our birth and continue to prosper, because we are not to blame for what happened, the meaning is only what will remain after us.
The movie is confused! A lot of things are strange and unclear to me. How can it be that the father of the boy Jack brings up in the son toughness of character and decency, and the son does the opposite (enters into someone else’s house and steals the night girl). The mother brings up love and humanity in her son, and he in turn asks his brother to put his finger under the barrel of a gun and beats his finger off. A child at this age absorbs everything like a sponge, he had to adopt the upbringing of his parents, and it seems that he grows up in a family of thieves and scoundrels. It's inconsistency.
The father in the film is shown as a monster and a tyrant, but in fact he does everything right, he feeds them, clothes them, gives them the conditions for a good life, raises them as men and requires them not so much. And if he gave him to boxing or karate, where they can hit and maim, then the father would be who? Inquisitor? Boy Jack is a bad child, he does not understand that he is like cheese in butter: if you want, play ball in the street with the guys, walk in the woods and from him (Jack) was required only respect for his father and mowing the lawn. And Jack wants and asks God for his father to die (when his father repaired the car, Jack wanted the car to fall and crush his father). Jack's father is an average man, not an alcoholic or a slacker, earns money and supports a family.
And when they show a grown-up Jack businessman, it was a mystery to me. The director did not show me any connection between Jack’s childhood and adult life. There is no causal relationship in the film. The movie is about understanding something important that I don’t understand. But I don’t regret watching it, thanks to such films you realize that not all the gold that shines!
Who is this who darkens Providence with words without meaning? (c)
The Tree of Life. Terrence Malick is an amazing movie.
This is an adaptation of the Book of Job. I took a quick look at the authoritative critical articles, which I may have missed, but I can’t help but be amazed that everyone seems to have missed such an obvious fact (and the film even explicitly mentions this – and I wondered why the director would verbalize it!). Of course, there is no elderly righteous leper in the Tree of Life. But if I had decided to bring the Book of Job to the screen, I would have done so. If only I were a genius. And this, of course, is the only way to film this book (until now I didn’t think it was even possible).
The Tree of Life is about the relationship of man and God; of man and the world; of the world and that which is outside it, greater than it and before it; of the sufferings of the righteous and the unrighteous; of losses; of the structure of the world; of birth and death. But it's not just that. The most obvious source of the film is that it is not a narrative - there are events, but there is no plot, there is no consistent development of coherent events; it is not a story, but a dialogue, the same dialogue between man and God. A dialogue that happens in every person’s life – or what is a person’s life?
And of course there's an answer. Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Exactly. But that's enough, because I can't resist quoting the whole book instead of talking about the movie, because that's the most accurate expression of the essence. I am afraid that in the case of such profound things, one can only change the film adaptation and literary source in places, but it is impossible to single out the essence of both verbally.
Sometimes it seemed to me that some of the details of the specific event content of the film were too emphasized: would not the acute conflict of father and son, or the specially emphasized opposition of father and mother, distract us from deeper and more general categories? But this is perhaps an unfounded claim. In this part, the film is absolutely realistic (in fact, it can be viewed as an hour and a half family chronicle-melodrama, framed by a meditative video series for an hour and more at the beginning and end), and the generality does not go anywhere, since such (not exactly such, but typologically such) experience is characteristic of everyone, as well as the fact that what we do not like in our upbringing affects us as much, if not more, as what we liked. Everyone has a question about God, whether it is a question about their father or something else.
The Tree of Life is stunningly beautiful. Until its essence flashed suddenly with lightning, I perceived it as a work of pure art, an audiovisual extravaganza, quite worth watching and as such. In this case, the whole is much more than its parts, so I will not dissect the film into beautiful shots - what makes it really beautiful is Malick's obvious sense of the organic integrity of the material, in which the rhythm, the editing, and the music ...
From this film, the hairs on the neck stand on end. A truly accurate adaptation of the Book of Job is almost a miracle. I need to watch the rest of Malick's movies. And thanks to film festivals and awards that draw the attention of mere mortals to such a movie - otherwise, right, I would not have seen.
9 out of 10
Time and Earth. Men and Eternity. Being and Consciousness. God and eternal inner solitude.
In my opinion, this film is one of the most outstanding in the history of cinema (despite the fact that it is modern). Not many people will understand him, because most often ' philistines' (pardon me for the word) is haunted by the idea that if actors of such magnitude are filmed in a movie, then the movie should be WOW. When you fall into this category, you’ll be actively thinking for the first 20 minutes and not understanding anything, spitting and scolding the author, and soon turning him off. But even those who continue to watch will be shocked by what they see. And I'm ready to understand them. After all, I was finally able to tell so beautifully and bizarrely in film language what torments many today, what tormented before, and will torment.
What is this movie about? This film is about two very important things.
1. This film is primarily about humanity. Subjectively enough, the author showed us the evolutionary chain. I won’t describe how, but I will say for sure that a person engaged in the study of evolution, who is interested in the most detailed details, and he will find many interesting moments in this film. For others, things will be a little more complicated. Judge for yourself, we are all born in the womb of a formed society. I grew up here and call me that. But it is only when we begin to dig into history and our consciousness, thanks to imagination, unwinds the tangle of life, that we suddenly realize that we are bound by an inseparable thread of cause and effect. We are part of the universe that surrounds us.
2. This film is about humanity, filled with knowledge, feelings and most importantly - love. It is because of these qualities that we can be called people.
Be sure to watch this movie. It is much deeper than it seems.
When you sit and wait for something, everything goes away. That was life. And it's over.
The Tree of Life is a film directed by Terrence Malick. I didn’t want to watch this movie for a long time, I don’t know why, I just wasn’t drawn to it. One day, I decided to try it.
The story revolves around Jack’s life. The mother teaches the son goodness and love, the father, on the contrary, tries to instill in the boy fortitude and cruelty. Jack’s parents are different people, each of them wants to convey to his son his understanding of life. Jack has an Oedipus complex with age. The boy begins to have anger towards his father and jealousy towards his mother.
It is very difficult for me to evaluate the Tree of Life, this film will definitely give you a certain meaning. Everyone's gonna get their own way. After watching this movie, you will not soon forget it. Already while watching, your head literally boils with information, you begin to realize what life is, all the values of the world, all the true nature of a person, what people should be, what it is worth living for. The Tree of Life gives an answer to all these questions. It's hard to explain the depth of the film. The most important thing is that this film falls in your memory, and you will understand and discover a lot of new things every year. "The Tree of Life" helps to look at the world from a different angle.
As for acting, the main roles were performed: Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain and Sean Penn. I personally sympathized with Chastain's heroine. So much warmth and kindness emanated from her that the mood literally rose immediately. Brad Pitt conveyed a strong image of his father. In some places he overplayed, but overall it was not bad. Sean Penn played great, as always.
To sum up, the film “Tree of Life” is a work of art that carries a deep meaning and purpose of human existence, shows many aspects of upbringing and helps to understand what life is. I recommend watching this movie, at least for self-improvement.
Although I am a lover of hard, thickly peppered, movies, with sweat, suffering and blood, recently I have experienced too much violence and unjustified cruelty on the screen. It became clear to imagine how the screenwriters were gathered in a certain huge banquet hall and secretly from them they were drunk with beast. I was already thinking of postponing daily movie screenings for an indefinite time, when suddenly fate had mercy and threw me the Tree of Life. Terrence Malick.
Perhaps at any other time, this film would not have gone the way it does now: meditative cinema, no matter how beautiful, is not my element. I like the elegance of Aronofsky’s Fountain or the thoughtfulness of Tarkovsky’s Mirror, but I perceive them with my mind and not with my heart. What about the Tree of Life? It is like Tarkovsky, only in a strongly concentrated form. Well, it's been pretty good. For two and a half hours I could not take off the screen even to go and put the kettle, and for me this, believe me, is significant, because a good movie, in my opinion, is always worth drinking strong fresh tea, it only gets better.
So what is the Tree of Life? In reviews it is usually compared to a symphony. The image is justified and in itself suggests language, but it does not contain the entire width and depth of the picture. I would like to compare this film with the stream of consciousness that flows on the viewer from the heights of the mountains. A lot of detailed images, but at the same time surprisingly your personal, recognizable, and this recognition, you know, catchy. You're not just watching a movie, you're reliving your own childhood: the worldview may not be identical, but there's this sense of spaciousness, clarity, transparency, colorfulness, mystery -- it's there. You see it all like the first time. Once again, as for the first time, you experience the infinity of the universe, the presence of God, the beauty of nature, the complexity of man as a microcosm. In short, The Tree of Life is a film about a child’s consciousness that has just begun to comprehend the world in all its complexity. Religious allusions, appeals to psychology – countless, but they are given through the prism of children’s perception.
As for the plot, it actually does not. You can understand that an adult man, the architect (Sean Penn), plunges into his own memories, where he has a mother (Jessica Chastain), a father (Brad Pitt - perfectly, by the way, I must say, played this difficult and far from ambiguous gentleman) and two brothers, one of whom dies at the very beginning of the film.
I will not guarantee that everyone will like this film, it is not for nothing that it was booed at the Cannes Festival, and it is also not for nothing that he was given the Golden Palm Branch. It's not for everyone. You may not like it, but it’s worth a try – who knows, maybe that’s what you’re missing. As long as it resonates. This is what happened to me.
Unusual in the production of the picture “Tree of Life” causes opposite feelings, probably, which prove that the film is not simple – I looked and forgot that there is something in it that makes you think, feel, experience. What was happening at the beginning of the film, of course, a little alienated, because it was completely unclear such a long screening of “discovery”. Honestly, I rewinded. Of course, one could assume that the brilliant director wanted to show that life begins, continues and even ends, continues somewhere out there in heaven. It is the divine that makes the real so full of meaning, etc. The imbued with biblical motifs (plus the constant monologues of the mother throughout the film) seems to bring you closer to something secret, to the edge of the present (children also die) and magic (but we will all meet there and be happy again).
In fact, it was impossible without tragedy. After all, the father, not showing a drop of love, positions himself as a despot who simply mocks young boys and his wife, including who lives in his house, because “she is only allowed to live in it.” How great is the openness and wingedness of boys in communication with their mother, when dad is on a business trip. I believe that one can be strict and impatient and all-knowing, but only through love. If the boys knew, or rather deeply felt that the father is filled with love for them, for his mother and simply demanding, surely the tragedy could have been avoided.
I really liked how the children’s births, their growing up, a green lawn, a light soaring mother and the words of neighbors sending to the knockout: “Don’t worry, you have two more.” These words can be addressed anywhere and any person, but not the mother who lost her son.
Although the film is given a big swing and, in my opinion, not 100%, I recommend it for parents to watch.
You know, I don't understand. I simply did not understand what the author of this film wanted to say, what he wanted to say to me and all other people.
Did he just want to "brainwash" the potential viewers, so much so that you are already amazed? Strange and Sumbure he did.
Reflecting the main characters at first, the wooden Brad Pitt with his signature jaw, a loving but strict father who apparently wants to pour out all his anger that has accumulated over his life on poor children. His strange wife, talking to no one knows who. Sean Pen, who walks in the desert, in the sea, in the most unexpected places. Who is he? Why is he in this story?
This movie is insanely beautiful at first, but is very long and is too moralistic. The first hour of this picture seems to be only the introductory, some prologue of something larger. Maybe I just didn’t understand the idea, maybe I don’t understand cinema at all, maybe I’ll even be reproached:
Just look at it better!
But, often, behind a beautiful picture-shell hides a rotten inner world. All I saw was the enchanting cosmos and the dinosaur that spotted the corpse of a relative, and it seemed to him that he was just as sad as I was watching. To be honest, I had enough.
"Tree of Life" is a dream film of the famous American director Terrence Malick. Malik first spoke about the project in the late 70s - then the tape was known as "Q". The project was abandoned, but some ideas went into the Tree of Life. Production began in 2006 with Colin Farrell and Mel Gibson, but was later suspended. In October 2007, negotiations were conducted by Sean Penn and Heath Ledger. In December, Penn was approved for the role, and Ledger died in 2008, in connection with which Brad Pitt took his role. This long-suffering construction in advance interested moviegoers all over the world, everyone knew that Malik is preparing something grandiose. The film was postponed many times, it was waiting for many festivals, but always at the last minute the film was postponed and said that Malik is still editing the film. In 2011, The Tree of Life finally saw the light of day and was shown to the audience in Cannes. At the end of the film, the auditorium was clearly split in half. Somewhere applauded and shouted “bravo!”, and somewhere in the whole “buchali”. What was seen on the screen was unusual even for a trained Cannes viewer. And when the jury gave the film the main prize “Golden Palm” indignation and misunderstanding became even more.
The film revolves around the story of Jack. Jack is an eleven-year-old boy and observes the world with the purity and immediacy of a growing child. The mother (Jessica Chastain) teaches his son goodness and selfless love, and is a deeply religious father (Brad Pitt) insists on the primacy of his interests in this life. Jack’s parents are different people, and everyone wants to convey to their son their understanding of their place in this life. The father is impulsive, impulsive, harsh and prepares his three sons to face this cruel world. Mother, on the other hand, is grace in the flesh. She is kind and full of love for her sons. Towards the end of the film, the boy says, “Father and mother, you are always fighting in me.” That will always be the case.” With age, the Oedipus complex becomes clearer. Characteristic symptoms are manifested: growing hatred of the father, jealousy of the mother, subconscious enmity, which in the plot grows to a conscious level.
The film talks a lot about religion, which many viewers did not like. The film begins with a quote from the Book of Job: Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth? Tell me if you know.” The screen shows the life of the Earth, and behind the scenes Jessica Chastain reads excerpts from the treatise “On the imitation of Christ” by the medieval monk Thomas of Campia: “My son, diligently note the movement of nature and grace; for they are very opposite, and such a subtle difference between them that it can only be understood by a spiritual and internally illumined person.” On the screen at this time, biological cells are divided, planets rotate, eruptions, geysers, seas, oceans, waterfalls, rocks and even dinosaurs are visible, which Malik will later remember more than once and call his creation a television film of the National Geographic channel. But visually, the film is incredibly beautiful. Absolutely brilliant camera work of the best cameraman in the world Emmanuel Lubetzky and luxurious musical accompaniment of one of the best composers of the world Alexander Depl make what happens on the screen unforgettable. Watching the film, you immediately realize that Malik shot it, you can not confuse it with anyone, as they say. The director perfectly connects the visual with the feelings and movements of the characters.
The main claims put forward by critics of the film are two – pretentiousness and pathos. And although I liked the film, I agree with these claims, plus I add that the first half, which shows the origin of the Earth, is very boring. I have a very personal relationship with this film. The O’Brien family reminds me so much of mine, and as a boy, I recognized myself more than once. And that feeling when what's happening on the screen horribly reminds you of your life in words.
Sometimes, walking down the street and meeting strangers in your path, do you think, looking at them, what kind of life they live? What are they thinking? What questions do they ask themselves? What do you doubt? What do you ask God for before going to bed? The Tree of Life gives us a glimpse into the three human souls.
Three different people: father, son and mother. Three different philosophies. Lots of questions. Doubt. Am I living right? What am I doing wrong? Why do troubles happen to me and how do I deal with them?
Every hero thinks and thinks in his own way. Bright, pure, innocent, loving, merciful mother as the embodiment of the bright sides of the human soul, which, despite the grief that has happened to her, does not lose Faith.
Hard, selfish and selfish father, as the embodiment of the dark sides of the human soul.
The son in whom good and evil, light and darkness, fight; the soul living in doubt, tormented by questions.
Anyone can recognize themselves in these people. Many of us have asked the same questions. Many of us have lost faith and wandered in search of light. But in the film, we hear not only questions, but also answers. What helps to restore faith? What helps you move forward? “The only way to happiness is love.” Do good to people and appreciate what you have.
The film with a deep philosophical meaning in combination with the excellent acting of the actors deserves the highest appreciation.
10 out of 10
Everything has a beginning, just like this review of The Tree of Life. Sometime in 2008, this picture appeared on my “expected” list. The description for the film created intrigue, and from it, and the desire to see the film as soon as possible, and the cast generally banished all doubts, which is only worth Brad Pitt. But when the film came out on the big screens, my attention was drawn to something else, and leaving the status of the tape to "watch." Until the very day before the second round of the Reviewers' Championship on Film Search began, where the area for finding inspiration for new reviews was marked by the winners of the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival, where I met the Tree of Life again. So began the birth of this review. Here we go.
The film left me with very two thoughts and emotions. No doubt the film is very interesting. I have never heard of the director and screenwriter Terrence Malick, especially not had a chance to appreciate his work. His film was very difficult for me to understand. I don’t want to beat myself in the chest trying to prove that I understood every second of the film, from beginning to end, even though I enjoyed the abstract side of it, but that’s not the main thing. Going through all the possible reasons in my head that make me unable to form a concrete opinion, I found only one. Most likely, I am simply not yet ripe for this picture to achieve full immersion in its very essence, being at the initial stage of my life path.
Plot
The creation of Terrance tells about the development of 11-year-old Jack, who goes through his path of being, at its various stages - how he sees our world, how he perceives it with his body and mind, and on the basis of which the establishment of moral foundations and principles that will have the last word in the future is based. His mom and dad, Mr. and Mrs. O’Brien, help him with this.
If you imagine the process of upbringing as abstract as the whole film, then Jack (with his brothers everywhere) is the tree of life, or rather, its sprout.
Mother - it can be represented by the element of water. As a housewife, she gives food to her family, is a salvation among the scorched desert of reality; affectionate and gentle. It is she who tries to show and teach to appreciate the beauty and value of nature.
The Father is firm as a stone, and impulsive as the wind, repeatedly losing its sense of proportion. Often it is very difficult for children to resist the impulse of his anger, and the earthquake of his manner of upbringing, in order to teach them to hold fast and firmly root for the right to have their place under the sun. But at times like this, it’s hard not to break.
You are always fighting in me and always will be.
Undoubtedly, they are both vital factors in order for a real baobab to grow out of a small sprout, rather than a dried saxaul. It was not a game of tug-of-war, it was a mission imposed by human nature; a nature given from above.
Totally. The Tree of Life is a film about life. How beautiful and unique is it in all its manifestation, whether it is nature or Man himself, because everything “breathes” in unison with matter. It will remind you why you should love life. For everyone, it will be individual, there are no “rightists”. The only time I want to read every person’s review. This is what Terrence Malik showed, where the signs of an autobiography are felt. There are many things that are incomprehensible, but one should not judge strictly, because the philosophy of life is a complex thing for which you need your time and place, and for each individual.
I will return many times to watch this wonderful tape, at different periods of my life, and if lucky, and at the age of the hero Sean Penn. I can confidently say that with each time, I will extract more clues, and one day, when there will be a lot of life experience behind me, I will develop a full understanding of the picture ... now it is in my top “expected”.
American director Terrence Malik is considered one of the main visionaries of American and world cinema. Starting his career as a screenwriter (Malick’s most famous script work is Dirty Harry starring Clint Eastwood), Malik directed the 1973 film Wasteland. Based on real events, the picture turned inside out the classic stories of romanticized criminals in the spirit of Bonnie and Clyde. This deromanticization, coupled with a parodied portrayal of the protagonists, was necessary in a political and cultural context. “The Wastelands” became a kind of “Our Answer to Chamberlain”, that is, such romantic-criminal sagas as “Bonnie and Clyde” and “The Godfather”. The next film of the director was the film “Days of Harvest”. The story of immigrants from Chicago to Texas received an award for directing the Cannes Film Festival and an Oscar for best cinematography. Indeed, from this film you can freely make a photo album and show it at various prestigious exhibitions.
Malik then retired from cinema for a full twenty years, returning only in 1998 with the film The Thin Red Line, which received the Golden Bear of the Berlin Film Festival. It was in this still highly artistic and quite deep film that dangerous trends began to manifest, which reached a climax in the Tree of Life. The visual component became self-sufficient, and the intraframe philosophy became dangerously close to the border with demagoguery.
The film “Tree of Life” repeats and repeatedly reinforces all the shortcomings of the “Thin Red Line”, while throwing overboard all its unconditional merits. The dramatic story of the life of one conservative family typical of the American suburbs of the 50s, unfolding against the background of an abundance of beautiful frames of nature under no less beautiful classical music (the leitmotif of the film was the famous “Vltava” from the symphonic poem “My Homeland” by the Czech composer Bedřich Smetana) does not cause due interest and sympathy, and the pretentious demonstration of the birth of life on earth and the evolution of all living things is made quite clumsy. Coupled with the voiceover on the output, we get an incredibly pathetic, pretentious and false product. Sean Penn's character has a comic effect. Penn plays the adult son of the hero Brad Pitt, who never turned into a flint thanks to the Spartan upbringing of his father, but rather became a typical neurotic from Woody Allen films. This character looks completely superfluous here, no wonder Sean Penn admitted that he never realized that he actually played.
“Tree of Life” could still be somehow saved by completely removing the voiceover text and the aforementioned character of Sean Penn from the film. And even better, remove all dialogue from the picture, making a kind of idyllic version of Godfrey Reggio's Katzi trilogy.
However, most critics, many viewers and the jury of the Cannes Film Festival bought into Malik’s deception (after all, a beautiful wrapper often overshadows the rotten core). The latter presented the film with the main award of the most prestigious of the film screenings of the planet - the Golden Palm Branch, which certainly does not belong on this tree.
4 out of 10
Mostly for the music and work of the cameraman Emmanuel Lubecki, who really brilliantly coped with his task.
Really. This is a beautiful film that I have only seen in my life. I'm not talking about his mesmerizing pitch, about a delightful plot that not many people catch. And speaking of serving. It's about filming. I'll start with that.
Praise the operator. Yeah, yeah, really. Filmed, in the past, in my hated style, let’s say, walking with the camera behind the actor. I did not like this style for its absurdity. Anne! This style in this film conveyed the full effect of presence, which was very, very necessary. And all because the brain is filled with thoughts of the boy and not just thinking, but thinking about his thoughts about his life. A kind of tautology... But. This tautology is very deliverable. Deviating from the topic, I will move on to acting.
Playing at height. The game is beautiful. I increasingly understand that Brad Pitt is a posh actor and is not overrated in any of his films. A little out of the question will say that he has recently become a little crazy or mainstream, something of this for sure. Sean Pen, the actor who played in the film, didn’t really hit me very hard. I don't know why, but I do. Jessica Chastain and her endurance of emotions transcends all boundaries.
One thing can be said about the plot. The plot is both simple and complex. Probably the last one comes out of the box. The struggle of two teachings on good and evil through the teachings of the father and mother will not let you get bored.
I can safely put
The film tells about two ways of life that the main character, the boy Jack, learns. His mother teaches him mercy and love for everything from God to every ray of light. The father is preparing for the brutal real world. How do you know what is best if God doesn’t know? What's bad and what's good? But at the end of the road, everyone will understand everything that is needed.
The picture impresses with its liveliness: whether it is a blade of grass in the rays of the sun, or a quiet infinite space. I want to sit for hours and think; I don’t want to go anywhere, especially in a hurry. I just want to rejoice, give good, love and be surprised at everything. No matter what!
Sit comfortably, relax and have a pleasant view!
9 out of 10
Called me once to visit the cinema to watch this masterpiece, the day before I did not sleep well, jumping at the last minute and terribly late I ran in the heat to see this film – the winner of the Cannes festival should be noted.
I will tell you honestly, from the first minutes of this film I somehow strained, the long philosophical introduction of the main character seemed to me at once too pretentious and pathetic, but I was pleased with the work of the operator, so I decided that if I did not understand the philosophy, so at least the picture will please, but the pancake philosophy of this work irritated me so much that even the picture did not inspire.
The story of the film is simple American family, a stay-at-home mother, soft, patient and loving their children, while the father is strict, tough, domineering and completely unrealized person, they live in a small American city and are engaged in raising children. Since the father in childhood dreamed of becoming a great musician, and became an engineer, he takes out part of the complexes on children, trying to educate them so that they “became hardened”, of course, in the methods of education he is not shy, children love him and at the same time hate, confused in their own feelings. The beginning of the film tells about the death of one of the sons and the main characters are immersed in memories, the eldest son Sean Penn became a successful top manager, it is not for nothing that the father used such tough methods of upbringing in childhood, but the hidden conflict remained between the father and son, as talking on the phone with his father he allows himself a little sharpness. Brad Pitt is tormented by memories of mistreatment of children, Sean Penn is tormented wandering into another reality, the mother is just tormented wandering through the woods and leading an internal dialogue with God. In general, they all suffer together trying to find the answer to the question “Why?”
Most of all, I was struck and outraged by this incomprehensible and unnecessary introduction to nature, dinosaurs, water, Sean Pan’s wanderings, the globe and yes, I understand all this spermatozoon mess and the Big Bang theory, but I don’t understand why? The usual family story doesn't go away? Do you have to make a movie like this? And okay, this insert would be like this for five minutes, but not as long and boring. Why did he get a golden branch for this insert? And all the episodes are so unbearably long, here she sits with the child shows him toys the child happily poured and the audience has already appreciated the beauty of the moment, but no it lasts and lasts, and the birth of the child ... the whole ward is white and the woman in labor is all white and all around white ...
While watching, I thought the end of the world is still close, directors lose the ability to shoot a normal high-quality film, they can not make just a story they need to flavor it with some unnecessary, in my opinion, effects, and the philosophy of the film? Well, how can one present such banal truths with such a high-flown look? “The meaning of life is love”, “I am ashamed that I lived so and did not notice the beauty of the world”, “People are like dogs they are insatiable”, “Lord, how did you admit that he died?”
I grunted, got in and was angry, and the film did not think to end, that's good all the same movie at home to watch once and turned off, and then you do not want - look.
After the movie ended behind us, we heard We Survived, yes... this movie is just about surviving.
I want to write about this film and it is already great, but unfortunately, almost everything in it raises questions. A lot is invented, a lot is planned - very little is reported. The only thing that this film does not doubt is the high level of aesthetics in visualization. So in order:
Genre
Claimed fantasy and drama are certainly present here, but not unequivocally. Honestly, the film is more like a kind of "porridge" with a huge amount of impurities - and not to say that to taste this "brew" turned out to be a masterpiece. It all begins with a biblical story, flows into a drama, turns into a popular science program about wildlife, and ends with a pitched art house - which, in turn, includes all of the above. What's happening is something unimaginable. This combination oversaturates the perception of what is happening on the screen – and not everyone will be able to fully taste such a “dish”.
Activity
Very harmonious composition, well-chosen types, very interesting finds, and above all praise the very play of all actors - especially children. But very confused, and knocked out in the course of the film, two attracted stars - Brad Pitt and Sean Penn. By 2010, these two eminent actors have a solid track record from top films, where they were given not the last roles. The charisma of Sean, just like Brad, as actors, as just people in the real world, is so at odds with the world created by the director that the only obvious reason for attracting such “giants” is commercial profit. Naturally, they did their job as always perfectly, but the film is aimed at a subtle game with the audience perception, where the slightest deviation greatly affects the result. And in this case, the film would only win if these roles were given to lesser-known actors, for whom this film could become a development, a push forward.
Scenario
Does the script play a significant role in this film? Definitely not. Changing any parts of the film in an arbitrary order (maybe with the exception of the first and last two minutes), the feeling will remain the same, the meaning will remain the same – everything will remain in its place. For a film, the definition of a metaphysical phenomenon is suitable, when the picture itself is integral in any of its manifestations: look at it backwards, look across – the viewer will see everything at once, but also about the main thing at the same time. However, such films, as a rule, often fall into the milk - not every viewer today will be able to perceive such a work of art.
Director
The techniques used by Terrence Malik cause incredible anger, then unrestrained happiness, and sometimes put to sleep. Despite the relatively slow movement of the plot, the entire dramatic part of the film is chained to the screen, the life of the actors on the shots is allowed to live and empathize with them, and the biblical motives spent throughout the film make even the most ardent atheist think. However, without a spoonful of tar and here will not do: albeit incredibly beautiful, but absolutely unsettling, images of nature as a symbol of life can really put to sleep; and the blurred image of the character of Sean Penn is striking against the background of bright filled images of children, father and mother – such neglect in building the storylines of the character causes sadness.
In general, this film can and should be watched, but only with the right attitude. Before viewing, you need to weaken the rational part of the brain, and prepare to absorb like a sponge.
It's a movie-feeling, and it needs to be felt, not understood. It will come later, take your time.
If I was playing a spoiled phone, then if I had this movie whispered in my ear from beginning to end, I would tell the next person everything from the moment of birth to the final moment, bypassing most of the presented nature, dinosaurs, etc. But it's my opinion, it's subjective, it depends on the human imagination.
Perhaps this film is for those who either thought little about the problems presented in the film, or want to think about it. To do this, you need to configure the viewer with lifestyles from different angles - this is how I see the director's motivation to frame the plot with landscapes, observing the life of the surrounding world. At the very least, with the whole movie in your head, you can feel it close to Malik’s vision. I say "close" because everyone is matchless in his feelings.
At the very beginning of the film, there is some “warning” that implies the religiosity of the film. Well, to quote Voltaire, "I do not agree with your opinion, but I am ready to give my life so that you can express it." The director boldly expressed his idea in this film.
P.S. Even during the film, it was thought that this movie was a way to live another life. And that's a huge plus for the director! After all, all of us in childhood were visited by thoughts about whom parents love more, which of them love more, what death is, why we are punished, whether parents are always right, etc. - this is such a depth, an opportunity to look at the world with different eyes!
8 out of 10
When you sit and wait for something, everything goes away. That was life. And it's over.
"The Tree of Life" is an incredibly interesting but at the same time very complex film. I would not say that the director and screenwriter of this film Terrence Malik is a noble Hollywood face, but he also contributed. In addition to this film, I also saw the dramatic thriller Wasteland, written and directed by the same Malik. Yes, I agree that I do not know this director very well, but his fantasy drama The Tree of Life opened my eyes to a new level not only of drama, but of the whole movie. The Tree of Life is a very specific movie, and I am sure that Terrence Malik did not shoot it for the general public, but still worried about the fees, so such stars of world cinema as Brad Pitt, Sean Penn and Jessica Chastain play here. I think that inviting young actors to this project would be stupid, because the film is not only complex in the plot, but also mentally difficult to plunge into this world of reality and the truth of human life, which competently managed to show Terrence Malik.
The movie lasted more than two hours, and I imagined a picture that is quite real. If there are three hundred people in the cinema hall, then only ten people will be satisfied after watching this film. This I myself suggested, because during the rental, people did what they did, that scolded this movie, scolded the director, actors, many even wrote that without waiting for half of the film, left. You can understand them, because cinema is not for everyone. I really liked it, but it's been a year and I've been left with a lot of questions about this movie. I did not suggest to myself that I should like this picture, because I am a sworn movie lover, I quite really enjoyed watching. Let’s say that Terrence Malik created his own movie, which can only please his like-minded people or those who see themselves in the faces of the main characters.
The beginning of the film makes it special. For about forty minutes on the screen will be present the birth of the planet and life in it, it was a stunning sight. But forty minutes to look at nature, the world and the cosmos, not everyone will be able, not everyone will understand what the matter is, what it is all about. But I believe that the beginning of the film explains the whole course of events. I don’t know why I gave the film the highest rating without getting to the bottom of the picture, but I’m sure this drama deserves the top ten. The plot tells about 11-year-old Jack, who has not yet discovered the whole world, trying to quickly explore it. But all this knowledge ends in a continuous maze, from which Jack is very difficult to get out, life is not always wonderful and not always beautiful and easy.
10 out of 10
Movie Review: 8 "The Tree of Life" - Appreciate the mind, but not the heart.
Cannes 2011. A rare case where the vast majority of paintings of the main competition program were magnificent. And stylish “Drive”, and reminiscent of the Soviet cinema “Le Havre”, and the Oscar-winning “The Artist”, and Dardennov’s “Le Gamin au velo”. Almodovar made his best film of the last decade, La Piel que habito. But perhaps the most attention was awarded to “Melancholia” Trier, who managed to become a persona non grata in Cannes and the epic giant Terrence Malick “The Tree of Life”, which received, in fact, the main award of the festival. Both films are similar to a personal story, compared with cosmic events - Trier has an apocalypse, Malik - on the contrary, almost the creation of the universe. But personally, if I had to choose between these two films, I gave a branch of “Melancholia”, since Trier’s picture is deep and personal, and Malik’s film is heavyweight, but, in general, soulless.
Any picture that attempts to address such global themes is ultimately too rational. The most recent example is another titan from 2012, Cloud Atlas. But if in “Atlas” only two novels turned out to be the most clinging to the heart, then with “Tree” everything is not so bad: the half of the film, which deals with the actual history of the family, is much less cold than the grandiose space panoramas, the creation of peace and suffering of Sean Penn, playing the adult protagonist of the film. But, despite the fact that they do not fit into the story of growing up a boy, they are made magnificently.
Another disadvantage is that if the path of the Father is spelled out in detail and clearly (we see the actions of the hero Pitt, his attitude to universal values), then the path of the Mother, in general, is absent in the film. The heroine of Jessica Chastain does nothing but tell children about goodness and religion, but whispers rather banal phrases behind the scenes.
Despite this, the film is given from the beginning to the end, it catches – the problem is not the heart, but the mind. The beauty of the film and its meanings (there are many of them here, and we will not decipher them - let everyone choose the one that is closer to him) are realized, but do not imprint on the soul, but simply remain in memory. But again, for a long time.
My opinion of The Tree of Life is too controversial to sum it up. There are a lot of different “buts” when evaluating it, and this is its main problem. Perhaps if Malik had chosen other fragments from his 365-hour footage and shuffled them in a different order, or simply added forty more minutes of screen time (yes, I love movies that last three hours and, in my opinion, such timing would only help), then the output would have been a more heartfelt picture. But what is done is done, and the film, for all its merits, is still not among my favorites. But to put the rating below eight does not allow me the quality of the picture. It's really great. So ...
Fathers and children in the interpretation of the reclusive director
Ambiguous director Terrence Malik did not release pictures under his leadership for five years, after the depressive-historical tape "New World" appeared on the screens. But here is the launch of "Tree of Life", for which, according to Malik himself , he long and carefully prepared. And the main role was invited Brad Pitt, who not so long ago said that it will be very scrupulous to choose new projects, where he will take part, and also, after a short time, will give up cinema altogether.
"Tree of Life" completely and completely refers to arthouse cinema, a complex, strange genre that will not appeal to everyone, painful action, dull, drawn-out, with voices behind the scenes - this is all "Tree of Life". In the philosophical line Terrence Malik carried out the eternal problem of fathers and children with his own perspective. Thinking about the state of things in the established values of the father (Brad Pitt), the peculiar upbringing of sons, the emergence of aggression towards the father, constant thoughts, why the father hates them, his children - this is the cornerstone of the stumbling block. Youth maximalism confronts an understanding of middle-aged life. This is very difficult, and Terrence Malik even more difficult visualized, covered with monologues, delayed the action, we can say, smeared it and the film was doomed to understanding only a select few, the rest either immediately refused to watch, and others interrupted it without reaching the middle.
For actors, playing in such a movie, according to their own assurances, is a test of their strength, showing new facets of their talent, it is unlikely that such a movie as "Tree of Life" will be over-cash, so the actors agree to such work only for romantic motives. As I said above, Brad Pitt stated that he will carefully approach the selection of roles for himself in new projects. Here’s one of the bells is The Tree of Life, an unusual film from all angles with an unusual role. Brad Pitt with his huge family, probably didn’t need to work too hard on the image, but I don’t think it’s the same in life as in The Tree of Life, so we still got something new from Brad Pitt.
Jessica Chastain is gradually getting ready to receive "star" status. Her work with Terrence Malik and Brad Pitt is not only proof of this, but also an invaluable experience in the most difficult cinema. She played in a deeply dramatic way and she succeeded, and also managed to connect her character with the character of Brad Pitt, I think it was a rather difficult task with which the young actress coped. But the problem of Shawn Penn I never understood. Wandering the world, a broken man, what did he symbolize? I would have to look a second time to see exactly how heartbroken he is, what he represents in the Tree of Life in his rare appearances, but I very, very much doubt that (that I will overcome the re-view). And the minimal presence of Sean Penn in the frame did not reveal the meaning of his image for me.
"Tree of Life" - the film is ambiguous, like its creator Terrence Malik. A philosophical drama filled with mental monologues is not a movie for everyone. The individuality and originality in it is fully deployed, plus the characteristic camera work for this kind of film, but it is difficult to understand, perceive and give unequivocal answers about this film.
It’s kind of awkward to call the Tree of Life a movie, but it involves actors, it was shown for money in theaters, shot on the script and expresses some thoughts and opinions of Malik, so it’s a movie. And now, if you do not forget about this during the viewing (which is very difficult), then most of the claims to the picture will disappear by itself and there will be aesthetic pleasure (this is inevitable if your receptors are still able to perceive beauty) from the picture and sound and, perhaps, but not forcibly, but at will, there will still be food for thought. Food, however, unlike the picture will be lean. The food is coarse, without artificial additives, which people ate long before us and before Malikov, and they ate it not for the sake of taste, but to satisfy hunger. So no stunning and contradictory ideas, I think you will not see.
The purpose of the above is to warn so that the persuasive viewer, having read reviews and reviews, does not refuse to view, frightened, or did not start viewing, with a biased attitude. The highest level film. You must watch it.
p.s. If it’s about high reflections, I don’t know if a religious person is a director, but for me the film seemed, first of all, an attempt to find God (or rather, a demonstration of the result, although no, not the result (which in this case can be the result), but the process of searching). All these flights on the surfaces of the planets, on the bottom of the oceans. It's like a camera scouring the world in search of God. The camera, trying to find Him, seems to penetrate everywhere. Maybe he's among the stars. No, I guess. Maybe deep in the sea? I didn't find it. And behind that tree? In that normal human family? And the director will come by. And we're with him. Could the truth be closer than we expected? Perhaps the most difficult questions are the simplest answers. . ?
And maybe we didn't notice God when we looked at jellyfish or Penn. Oh, there's also the possibility that He's everywhere and in everything. And in jellyfish, and in Penn, and in the grass, and in the sun. Maybe he doesn't exist. And there is no higher purpose and meaning in our existence, just as those dinosaurs did not.
p.p.s. Looking at it, I was surprised by the number of letters. But, indeed, Malik shot the movie with a capital letter.
And the scoundrel still made for high thoughts. Thank you, Terrence!
In one of the comments to the film on the Internet, I saw an interesting idea: this film should not be given a palm branch. Let me explain.
I can’t call the Tree of Life a complete movie. Each subsequent film Malik (I haven’t seen the New World, I can’t speak for it) turned out to be less plot and more philosophical and poetic. The Tree of Life is an aesthetic clip.
It's not just a movie not for everyone, it's a movie that stands outside of cinema itself. It may not be mandatory to watch, it can hardly compete with others at festivals, be publicly recognized or not recognized. It is too personal, Malik is too caring about cinematic norms, requirements for the script, plot, meaning, etc.
This is not even a “mirror” in which Tarkovsky diligently edited several timelines into a single plot poetic film. These are like mounted three hundred and seventy (if you believe the information on the sites) miles of film, in which the author reflects on behalf of the hero of the film, which are hardly designed for one-time viewing in one “approach”, do not contain questions for all. In principle, the director is hardly interested in festivals, awards, logic, he does not care about viewers with opposite philosophical views.
I don’t think it needs to be judged on a ten-point scale at all, but I do think it’s aesthetically brilliant.
Great idea, a little delayed by the load of changing frames.
For some reason, the review of this film, even in the initial version of the deliberation, was difficult for me. And most likely the reason is the ambiguity of the impressions received. But it's better about everything in order.
Have you ever wondered where God lives?
Jack is the main character, whose family life, in fact, we watch throughout the film. On the one hand, this is an ordinary child of an average American family, but on the other hand, it is the whole world. The world is in its development, movement, knowledge of God, in familiarity with something new, in anticipation, surprise, in disappointment, in its losses and injustices. The world is within one person.
Now, briefly, the main thing. The beginning of the film, for me personally, did not cause delight at first. The constant feeling of tightness, universal slowness, excessive globality and divinity whispered to me to press Alt + F4 without looking to the end. The only deterrent is the desire to wait for something more dynamic. Although the final brought me nothing but aesthetic pleasure, and not a deep sense of the situation.
As a result of two-hour viewing: not a little, not a lot, about 4-5 standing scenes; as expected, a good game of Brad Pitt; rich, chic landscapes that leave the impression of the sheer scale of the picture.
What annoyed me a little while watching was the excessive depth and complexity of the individual moments. There were two and sometimes three versions of what we could talk about and what they wanted to tell us. A good movie should be accessible and should not go overboard with the opportunity to dig deeper. Even when it comes to God, life, evolution and development.
For those who are in the mood of thinking about the universe, go ahead and see without delay. For others – patience and willingness to think about the eternal.
Not my format, not my ways of perceiving such a universal thought.
6 out of 10
If I had seen this movie a year ago, I would have turned it off for ten minutes. "Too boring and boring," I would say then. But no, I saw this movie right now, at the right time in my life. It’s not like he opened my eyes to some things, because simply put, Tree of Life is not a movie. It is the wind, the sun, the sea and the rain outside, it is grass and the clearest sky, and it is also the most valuable memories and emotions in life. This tape cannot be explained with language because it is pure emotion.
She is the memory of her childhood, she is the love of her parents, whatever they may be, she is you, with your thoughts and feelings. It's just something deep in your heart that many of us are afraid to show others, something insanely personal. I didn’t care what actors were playing. Pitt, Penn... Their faces blurred, and now, instead of them, I see the faces of my loved ones. Father, mother... My own childhood and tears of endless nostalgia roll down my cheeks.
I never thought you could take that off. It's such a big splash, it's so hard. I know a lot of people will disagree with me. Others will just swing their fingers at their temples. But I am convinced that what Terrence Malik shot will resonate with absolutely any person, if you just drop deeper and remember those days when I was a little girl.
For extraordinary ease with fading in the heart and insanely beautiful landscapes
10 out of 10
These movies are not for everyone. Of course, the easiest thing to say is “something they have invented”, to figure it out is much more difficult. The film is heavy with an abundance of images and a lack of dialogue. Most monologues are more like a cry of the soul than a discourse. Not everyone likes it, so many will not last more than 10-15 minutes. To realize the “Tree of Life” you need a special, leisurely and thoughtful state of mind, perhaps even the maturity of the latter.
Do not watch a movie if you:
You want to relax, relax, relax.
Absolutely not religious;
They are not inclined to philosophize.
If you decide to watch, it is better to do it alone, under the mood, with excess time, better on DVD to be able to pause.
The film is valuable because it refers us to our own childhood, problems and crises: to life itself with its multifaceted reality. The scenes of the birth and development of the planet, which the director placed at the beginning of the picture, on the one hand tire, on the other hand, tune in to the subsequent narrative. From the beginning of time, life and death exist side by side, and this is no less relevant today. The only difference is that people are used to seeking justice based on their faith. Meanwhile, faith does not protect it and does not provide guarantees, it only serves as a support for overcoming difficulties.
It's great to play actors, especially children. The episodes surrounding the birth and early childhood of the three brothers are poignant and incredibly true. They are like flashes of your own memories from early childhood, intuitive to anyone and cause some primitive feelings of belonging to what is happening on the screen.
Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain are simply unrecognizable, worthy of all praise! In the absence of full-fledged dialogue, the actors have to work with a look, movement, pose. They are very honest and sincere.
An undisputed disadvantage can be considered timekeeping. As a rule, the picture, stepping over the 2-hour line, in 90% of cases sags in places and makes the viewer sleep. The tree is no exception.
The only advice that I would like to give the viewer - watch the film to the end, and only then make your personal opinion about it.
9 out of 10
I didn't understand Terrence Malick's direction. At all. What was he filming? A documentary? A non-fiction movie? A play movie? A video clip of childhood memories? Video of natural disasters for the Discovery Channel? The film left no impression on me. If a director, like Iñárritu, made a dedication in the finale to his parents, or his brother, or any of his relatives or acquaintances, I would understand. But no, Malik, I believe, had a purpose: to tell about the origins of the tree of life of each of us. But I never saw the story. There was a picture, with lots of extra details, and a set of words: where are you, who are you, hear us, quotes from the Bible that don't reveal anything new, or even make you think.
The script lacked depth. There is no situation that heroes live in, there is a statement of fact: my father was like this, and I, son, do not differ much from him. How to beat the age-old ' conflict of generations' in the film Malik did not cause me a strong audience interest, especially against the background of recently held at the box office powerful films on the same theme as ' Beauty', ' Mr. Nobody', ' Revenge', and even 'The mysterious story of Benjamin Button'.
Pitt's good acting work, though Tarantin's Aldo Rein clearly showed up. The boy played very well: Hunter McCracken, however, I do not remember any of the last films where children played badly.
The film does not shake, does not turn the soul, the action is perceived quite calmly. 16 minutes of screen time took the natural element in its various manifestations, without a single word, and it clearly did not benefit the film, and caused only sad bewilderment: for what was awarded the Golden Palm Branch.